ysabetwordsmith (
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2024-02-20 12:05 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
Alabama Declares Frozen Embryos as Children
Frozen embryos are children, Ala. high court says in unprecedented ruling
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.
I cracked up laughing. See, here's the thing about frozen embryos: storing them isn't cheap. Alabama is going to hemorrhage money. After all, if the parents can't afford to pay the fertility clinic for maintenance, and the clinic isn't providing that service for free, who's on the hook for those "children" now? Alabama Family Services.
Of course, in theory, they could hire surrogates to birth the babies, but that's expensive too. Then AFS would have to pay someone else to raise them, since they're unwanted. That's if you can pry the parental rights away from the people who provided the genetic material, which is not easy, as demonstrated by many previous divorce battles over embryos. More money down the drain. Let's not forget, Alabama is Deep South which is dirt-poor compared to the North already.
Congratulations, Alabama, you just punched the Tar Baby. Have fun with that.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.
I cracked up laughing. See, here's the thing about frozen embryos: storing them isn't cheap. Alabama is going to hemorrhage money. After all, if the parents can't afford to pay the fertility clinic for maintenance, and the clinic isn't providing that service for free, who's on the hook for those "children" now? Alabama Family Services.
Of course, in theory, they could hire surrogates to birth the babies, but that's expensive too. Then AFS would have to pay someone else to raise them, since they're unwanted. That's if you can pry the parental rights away from the people who provided the genetic material, which is not easy, as demonstrated by many previous divorce battles over embryos. More money down the drain. Let's not forget, Alabama is Deep South which is dirt-poor compared to the North already.
Congratulations, Alabama, you just punched the Tar Baby. Have fun with that.
no subject
Well ...
Even more LULZ! Some of those babies are bound to be nonwhite and statistically speaking at least 10% of them will be queers. Seriously, wait 18 years and look for T-shirts that say, "Alabama made me queer!" :D
Re: Well ...
Re: Well ...
Re: Well ...
I think if they try that, the historians can remind folks about indentured servitude, how chattel slavery got new slaves, and the whole sex slavery thing which is ongoing even today.
Re: Well ...
Forcing women to bear unwanted children is already indentured servitude and sex slavery. Doing it to women in prison is just a little more blatant. In zoological terms it's called brood parasitism.
Re: Well ...
Although...I remember the epic fussing people did over the rumors that government healthcare would forve-harvest organs from sick people.
I wonder if kicking up a fuss about the governament force using organs would do any good?
Also, might these laws be argued to be in violation of the Third Amendment? Or does it not count because infants aren't soldiers?
Or more directly, could the government quarter civilians or civilian workers in private homes?
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-iii
Re: Well ...
It's more active to pressure or force a woman to host a frozen embryo, because that requires medical intervention (and in fact medical rape to place it), than it is to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy after she chose to have sex. But if she was raped, then it's a continuance of rape.
>> Although...I remember the epic fussing people did over the rumors that government healthcare would forve-harvest organs from sick people. <<
China does that. They murder people to order. If you're rich enough, you can go there and they'll run a match so they can butcher a prisoner for whatever you need.
>> I wonder if kicking up a fuss about the governament force using organs would do any good? <<
It's worth a try.
Notice that there is no other situation where one person can be forced to supply their body for another person's need, even to save a life -- not even something as simple as donating blood. And civilians who aren't emergency workers can't be expected to risk their life for someone else because they didn't sign up for that, but pregnancy routinely kills women -- especially black women, especially in America, and most of all in the same states that are using women as sex slaves.
There are already wrongful death and harm cases in the pipes because, despite the "technical" exceptions in the laws, doctors won't perform life-saving abortions for women who need them, even in an emergency. And the ones I've heard about of those were wanted pregnancies that went wrong, which just adds insult to injury.
>>Also, might these laws be argued to be in violation of the Third Amendment? Or does it not count because infants aren't soldiers?
Or more directly, could the government quarter civilians or civilian workers in private homes? <<
Well, the original specified soldiers. You'd need to have a legal clerk look up in a law library whether anyone had ever challenged based on having a civilian forced into their home.
It likely doesn't matter because the illegitimate Supreme Court doesn't feel bound by precedent either. They just do whatever they want and then it's everyone's problem.
Re: Well ...
Ironically, I have heard that as an argument for why miscarriages are okay, but abortions are not. I think there are similar arguments for 'taking herbs to regulate your cycle' versus pharmaceutical contraceptives.
(Yes I know about the whole problem of jailing women for miscarriages in some places.)
Also, now I am wondering about the logistics of trying to drag God into court for murder (i.e. a miscarriage). On the one hand, God is cognizant enough to know the law, on the other I am unsure if the U.S. legal system allows for people to sue nonhuman entities. I think patent law says patent holders must be human...dunno about criminal charges.
>>China does that.<<
The example I was referencing were the hysterical rumors about how Obamacare would destroy civilization as we know it...given the number of social changes that were going to destroy society, you'd think we'd be a smoking pile of rubble by now.
>>Notice that there is no other situation where one person can be forced to supply their body for another person's need, even to save a life -- not even something as simple as donating blood.<<
Yes, if the law was consistent not only would stuff like blood and organ donation be mandatory, but stuff like medically-necessary blood thinners and having sex (of whatever type) would have to be declared illegal.
After all, if a woman is not allowed to drink alcohol because she /might/ be pregnant, then people should not be allowed to engage in behavior that might make their tissues and organs unsuitable for donations, such as taking certain medications and having sex (since sex sometimes spreads nasty diseases like AIDS.)
This might actually be the best option for protest - everything from signing up pro-abortion politicians for every organ-donor charity in existence (or even just calling out those who aren't organ donors) to walking around and loudly explaining to folks that it is a crime against society for them to drink beer/buy Viagra/get married/engage in extreme sports and so on, because it might risk someone's life. (Ideally this would be targeted at the kinds of people that favor forced pregnancy.)
I have occasionally wondered about handing out organ donation tracts to abortion clinic protesters, which would be a fairly simple and low-key option.
>>Well, the original specified soldiers. You'd need to have a legal clerk look up in a law library whether anyone had ever challenged based on having a civilian forced into their home.<<
Hm, I'd also want to check how it might affect renter's right. I wouldn't want to set a precedent where deed-holders can toss renters and residents out with no warning, especially since most people these days /are/ renters.
>>It likely doesn't matter because the illegitimate Supreme Court doesn't feel bound by precedent either. They just do whatever they want and then it's everyone's problem.<<
The Supreme Court is the official decider, but if enough people have strong feelings that the zeitgeist becomes different than the actual law, than precedents suggest that society will follow the zeitgeist, not the letter of the law.
Remember, lynching was illegal for a long time in its heyday, separate but equal was enforced in the first but not the second part, shanghai'ing was also illegal, and the courts declared that the Cherokee owned their land before the army chased them to the Trail of Tears. Oh, and I am fairly sure it has always been illegal to rebel against a reigning king, but history is full of such criminal activity.
So, just because the Supreme Court declares something to be right, doesn't necessarily mean that people will go along with it. And lot of Americans follow the Constitution with an almost religious level of devotion. I suspect if someone tried to repeal a core part of the Constitution, well, a lot of people might be upset.